Mis-Ally-gnment

Imagine if on September 12, 2001, Israel had come to us and urged us to sign a truce with Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda? What would have been our response? Can you imagine the outcry of the American people? And yet, that is essentially what we are doing now to Israel.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry just returned from a peacemaking mission in the Middle East, trying to broker a truce between Israel and Hamas. Forgetting that the specifics of the proposed truce would have given Hamas everything they wanted and would have left Israel in the same state that caused them to take action in the first place, I think a larger question is in place. Why are we—the United States, an ally of Israel, one of a number of nations to have declared Hamas a terrorist organization—urging Israel and Hamas to sign a truce? Lest we forget, this is not the nation of Israel at war with the nation of Gaza. This is the nation of Israel at war with terrorists. We, of all countries in the 21st century, should understand that sort of conflict. And so, I ask again, why are trying to get these two sides to settle? Why aren’t we pledging our total and absolute support to Israel in stomping out terrorism? And how can the United States of America not understand that making peace with terrorists isn’t an option?

I know there are complexities and intricacies at play that I cannot even imagine. And nothing is as simple as it seems on TV. But this is a fundamental precept. A sovereign nation, who wants only the right to life and liberty, is fighting against an organization who wants to exterminate them from the earth. An organization who sends suicide bombers to blow up city buses. An organization that places military command posts in hospitals and hides their weapons in civilian areas. An organization of hate. How can any reasonable person look at this conflict and not see a clear “good guy” and a clear “bad guy”?

The media—and so it would seem from their efforts, the current administration—would like to portray this conflict as a battle of equals. Israel is condemned for killing innocent people in their bombing campaigns, and for taking a disproportionate number of lives compared to Hamas. So not only are they being criticized for winning (and you thought it was just kids soccer where we blurred the lines between winners and losers) but for the natural results of war. Is loss of life tragic? Absolutely! Are many of the Palestinians who are being killed “innocent”? Absolutely. But here is a cold hard truth of life: Innocent people die. All of the Israelis who have been killed are innocent. All of the victims of terror around the world are innocent. And while ridding the world of Hamas is going to have some collateral damage—and that collateral damage is indeed tragic—I believe it will be far smaller than the damage (lost lives) that will occur if Hamas is allowed to continue terrorizing under the guise of a “truce.” And keep in mind, Hamas was elected to power by some of these innocent people. Hamas is ordering them to stay in the way of bombings after Israel has warned them to leave and be saved—Hamas is the one killing innocent people.

War is part of life in a fallen world. And while we would all love peace, we have to be realistic. The nature of things should teach us that peace does not occur when “good guys” and “bad guys” agree to peace, because bad guys cannot be trusted to maintain peace. (That’s why we incarcerate criminals instead of having them sign an agreement that they won’t do bad things anymore.) Peace occurs when bad guys are eliminated or forced to be peaceful. We should not be trying to get Israel and Hamas to sign a truce and return to the status quo. We should be cheering for Israel and supporting Israel, exhorting them on until Hamas has been obliterated from the face of the earth. Will innocent people die in that quest? Certainly. Will more innocent people die if that quest is not undertaken and completed? I think that is far more certain.

Have you ever read a novel or watched a movie where you were given too much insight into the mind of the antagonist? For example, I’m reading a mystery now where dual protagonists are trying to solve the disappearance of a missing woman. But lately, much of the novel has been written from the POV of the woman’s killer. I know what happened to her and why before the protagonists. I’m no longer trying to solve the mystery with them; I’m now waiting for them to figure it out. And to me, that kills (pun intended) much of the intrigue of the novel. For any author, it is a fine balance between leaving a reader befuddled by a complex plot and having them twiddling their thumbs while they wait for events to play out. And to be sure, there are cases where writing from an antagonist’s POV can further a story. Exploring the mind of a serial killer can help the reader understand why he kills. Placing the reader in the room with terrorists plotting an attack can enhance the sense of danger in a way writing from a protagonist’s POV cannot. Showing a criminal as a devoted spouse and parent blurs the line between good and evil and forces the reader to ask tough questions. All are legitimate instances where getting into the head of the antagonist is a good thing.Another example is the old Peter Falk classic Columbo. The show always started by showing us the murder. There was no suspense in finding out who committed the crime or why. But Columbo wasn’t a “whodunit.” It was more about the psychological battle between Lieutenant Columbo and the killer. In that case, being in the head of the killer works.When writing from an antagonist’s POV becomes a problem is when the reader gets ahead of the protagonist. The last thing you want as an author is to have your protagonist come to that “aha” moment when they make a major breakthrough, only to have the reader respond with, “Yeah, I’ve known that for eight chapters.” You don’t want your protagonist looking inept and uninformed. If you’re going for that Ted Dekker sort of psychological brainteaser where the good guy turns out to be the bad guy, or if the main obstacle for your protagonist isn’t solving some mystery, then all bets are off. But assuming your protagonist is truly the protagonist, and assuming he or she is going to be trying to solve or resolve something, make sure you don’t give away the ending! It sounds obvious, but as I mentioned in the instance above, I’m ahead of the protagonists. You don’t want that happening.So how much is too much? How do you balance the intrigue of delving into the antagonist’s mind without spoiling things for the reader? Here are a few suggestions from a reader who has too often been frustrated by knowing more than the protagonist in a novel:1) If a clearly-defined protagonist is trying to solve a mystery of any sort, let the reader have a chance to solve it along with him. It’s one thing to place clues so that if your reader is a better detective than your actual detective, he or she might solve the mystery ahead of them. It’s another thing entirely to give them the answer by placing them in the head of the antagonist.2) Use the antagonist’s POV only to provide necessary information that couldn’t be revealed otherwise and that won’t be revealed otherwise. For example, a conversation between terrorists reveals that the bomb they are going to detonate is actually a nuclear device. Now the reader realizes the stakes and is drawn in. The problem is, if the authorities and heroes searching for the bomb don’t know that it is a nuclear device, they won’t have the urgency the reader does, which will be frustrating for him or her. It might be better to find a way to reveal this information from a protagonist’s POV.3) Don’t give the reader personal details from the antagonist’s POV unless they are relevant to the story. As a reader, I don’t care that the terrorist lost his parents as a child; I just want him captured or killed. I don’t need to know why a killer likes chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla; I just want him arrested before he kills again. I don’t care how the criminal feels about the environment unless it is pertinent to his crime. You can flesh out a protagonist just to round out the character. Don’t do it with “baddies.”4) Be careful of creating a situation where the reader is rooting for the antagonist (unless that’s what you want). It is only human nature that we begin to assume the point of view of whoever’s mind we’re in. When I watch Columbo, I often find myself hoping the character gets away with his crime, simply because I’ve been in his mind for 30 minutes as he perpetrates it. If you give the reader much time in the mind of your villain, unless he is utterly and totally repulsive, they’re going to start to pull for him.5) Ultimately, the adage that so many writers use is KISS—Keep It Simple Stupid. The same applies here. Give the reader no more insight into the mind of your antagonist than is absolutely necessary. Focus on the hero. He is, after all, the hero.

Categories

Author

I'm a thinker. For better or worse, my mind is always running. As a writer, I also love the method of communication. I think there's an artistry to it. This blog is my way of giving my constant thinking a place to express itself artistically.